🍕  Food Memes

🗄  Work Memes

♥️  I Love You Memes

🗯  Cash Me Outside Meme

🙄  Eye Roll Meme

🌿  Weed Memes

Societal Memes

A
A
Flawed
Flawed
Most
Most
Successful
Successful
Https
Https
A Href
A Href
Physically
Physically
Are
Are
Our
Our
The
The 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread
 Zachary Fox and 3 others liked
 A$MR Rocky
 @ChristianMingel
 Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids
 can cause them to be violent adults"
 Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never
 turned out violent. That's why l can't
 wait to hit my own kids when l get them"
 1/4/18, 2:44 PM
 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes
imfemalewarrior:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

asexual-not-asexual-detective:

Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. 

Except they’re not. 
The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit.
And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. 
Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. 
Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse)
And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. 
The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. 

We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development. 
Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 
        

            
            

                
                
                    Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread
 Zachary Fox and 3 others liked
 A$MR Rocky
 @ChristianMingel
 Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids
 can cause them to be violent adults"
 Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never
 turned out violent. That's why l can't
 wait to hit my own kids when l get them"
 1/4/18, 2:44 PM
 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes
imfemalewarrior:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

asexual-not-asexual-detective:

Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. 

Except they’re not. 
The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit.
And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. 
Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. 
Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse)
And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. 
The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. 

We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development. 
Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Alive, Facts, and Love: STORICAL | "Victoria Woodhull, prostitute, spiritualist,
 STERICAL Wall Street broker, publisher of a national
 FACTS
 newspaper, ran for President of the United
 States against Ulysses S. Grant and
 Horace Greeley in 1872," notes Irving
 Wallace. "Her platform supported free
 love, short skirts, abolition of the death
 penalty, vegetarianism, excess-profit
 taxes, birth control, better public housing
 easier divorce laws, world government,
 and female orgasm."Truly a woman ahead
 of her time.
mollokoplus:
mugglebornandraised:

tadeuszkosciuszkoscoffee:

reservoircat:

captainscullyful:

characterflaws:

misslunasapphire:

gerutha:

phoenixaskani:

If this woman was alive today, she’d have my vote. Shit.

#she put frederick douglass on her ballot as v.p. too #unfortunately he didn’t know about it at the time #he read about it in the papers and was like ‘is this chick serious’

Victoria Woodhull 2016

This fails to mention that she was the first woman to run for US president, as well as being the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street alongside her sister Tennie Claflin, and their newspaper published the first English translation of the Communist Manifesto known to date

@reservoircat HEY LOOK WHAT JUST POPPED UP ON MY DASH

YES, I HAVE *OPINIONS* ABOUT THIS POST.
Okay, for starters, Victoria wasn’t a sex worker. She wasn’t necessarily anti-sex worker in the manner of the time–she viewed it as a societal ill that occurred because of the inequality of women and the power structure which allowed and abused such sex work. But she very much wanted to destroy the structures that forced many women into sex work and sex trafficking.
The claims that Victoria herself was a sex worker come from two things: her supportive stance on ‘free love’, i.e. the allowance for men and women to chose their own consensual sex partners outside of marriage, and her rise to power as a millionaire New York stock broker and newspaper owner. See, men of the time refused to believe that Victoria and her younger sister Tennessee Claflin could truly be such shrewd, ambitious and forward thinking businesswomen all on their own. So they spread the rumor that the sisters got their positions and fortunes from being sugar babies basically.
She was also virulently anti-trafficking after her younger sister and business partner Tennie Claflin was kidnapped and sold into brothels by one of their business rivals. When this happened, Victoria and her husband Colonel James Blood tracked the traffickers down and retrieved Tennie at gunpoint from her captors. 
Victoria was not well liked by her fellow suffragists either because she was an ardent supporter of Black suffrage and total equality of all races. She regularly told Stanton and Anthony to go fuck themselves.
It was awesome. She was awesome.
I just love Victoria Woodhull so much ;-;

Can we necromance this woman and make her President?


Her husband’s name was Colonel James Blood??? Her sister’s name was Tennessee????
Where’s the movie. I need it yesterday.

And known by a surname not her husband’s. Fuck yeah!

        

            
            

                
                
                    Alive, Facts, and Love: STORICAL | "Victoria Woodhull, prostitute, spiritualist,
 STERICAL Wall Street broker, publisher of a national
 FACTS
 newspaper, ran for President of the United
 States against Ulysses S. Grant and
 Horace Greeley in 1872," notes Irving
 Wallace. "Her platform supported free
 love, short skirts, abolition of the death
 penalty, vegetarianism, excess-profit
 taxes, birth control, better public housing
 easier divorce laws, world government,
 and female orgasm."Truly a woman ahead
 of her time.
mollokoplus:
mugglebornandraised:

tadeuszkosciuszkoscoffee:

reservoircat:

captainscullyful:

characterflaws:

misslunasapphire:

gerutha:

phoenixaskani:

If this woman was alive today, she’d have my vote. Shit.

#she put frederick douglass on her ballot as v.p. too #unfortunately he didn’t know about it at the time #he read about it in the papers and was like ‘is this chick serious’

Victoria Woodhull 2016

This fails to mention that she was the first woman to run for US president, as well as being the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street alongside her sister Tennie Claflin, and their newspaper published the first English translation of the Communist Manifesto known to date

@reservoircat HEY LOOK WHAT JUST POPPED UP ON MY DASH

YES, I HAVE *OPINIONS* ABOUT THIS POST.
Okay, for starters, Victoria wasn’t a sex worker. She wasn’t necessarily anti-sex worker in the manner of the time–she viewed it as a societal ill that occurred because of the inequality of women and the power structure which allowed and abused such sex work. But she very much wanted to destroy the structures that forced many women into sex work and sex trafficking.
The claims that Victoria herself was a sex worker come from two things: her supportive stance on ‘free love’, i.e. the allowance for men and women to chose their own consensual sex partners outside of marriage, and her rise to power as a millionaire New York stock broker and newspaper owner. See, men of the time refused to believe that Victoria and her younger sister Tennessee Claflin could truly be such shrewd, ambitious and forward thinking businesswomen all on their own. So they spread the rumor that the sisters got their positions and fortunes from being sugar babies basically.
She was also virulently anti-trafficking after her younger sister and business partner Tennie Claflin was kidnapped and sold into brothels by one of their business rivals. When this happened, Victoria and her husband Colonel James Blood tracked the traffickers down and retrieved Tennie at gunpoint from her captors. 
Victoria was not well liked by her fellow suffragists either because she was an ardent supporter of Black suffrage and total equality of all races. She regularly told Stanton and Anthony to go fuck themselves.
It was awesome. She was awesome.
I just love Victoria Woodhull so much ;-;

Can we necromance this woman and make her President?


Her husband’s name was Colonel James Blood??? Her sister’s name was Tennessee????
Where’s the movie. I need it yesterday.

And known by a surname not her husband’s. Fuck yeah!

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Being Alone, Beautiful, and Bitch: Bítch 1 míaht be.
 magritte
iammissanna:
tzikeh:

the-fault-in-our-wifi:

oh my fucking god

Everyone go home. The internet is over.

Okay, you know what? I just reblogged this but I wanna get geeky over it. ‘Cause this is some high-class humor right here, and if you don’t get that you need to be educated so here I am about to do the thing you’re not supposed to do and explain the joke, because I’m just really impressed by this joke’s construction, okay?
So back in Paris in the 1920s, the surrealist movement in art was just starting to take off. The surrealist movement was born from the dadaist movement, which was a response to strict societal ideas of what was “art” and what wasn’t. The dadaists made a lot of works to try and challenge society’s ideas of what art even was in the first place, and this continued on into the more sophisticated abstract works of surrealism.
One such artist, Rene Magritte (also known for his paintings of people with invisible heads, or with fruit for heads), painted a work called “The Treachery of Images,” depicting a pipe, and underneath the words (in french) “This is Not a Pipe.” The words were meant to refer to the fact that the painted pipe was literally not a real physical pipe that a viewer could smoke out of, it was just a painting of a pipe.
The painting was extremely meta, and really challenged the habit of allowing oneself to get so immersed in a work of art that one forgets it is a created representation of life, and not actual life. Understanding that alone takes a good deal of abstract thinking ability. And really appreciating and enjoying it requires a certain amount of one’s own frustration with society’s habit of trying to put limits on the definition of art; and being unable to think outside the box and really see something from all possible perspectives, including the perspective of being completely outside the thing.
Now what’s even more fascinating to me is that modern art movements (and I don’t mean “modern art,” I mean actual contemporary art movements that are being led by our peers) are kinda doing the same thing the dadaist movement was doing, but in reaction to the art that came out of the dadaist movement. Things have circled back around again, and abstract surrealist art is now what society has decided “art” is. And our generation doesn’t accept that. Comics, video games, TV shows and movies, graffiti art, web series, even flash mobs, all of these are our generation’s way of saying, “no, society, you don’t get to define art as strictly as ‘if it doesn’t make sense to me it must be brilliant.’ Art can be simple to understand, art can be accessible to all people, art can make you beg to find out what happens next!” And that’s really interesting to me.
Flash forwards to 2006, when rapper Gucci Mane writes a song called “Pillz” in which the phrase “bitch I might be” was coined and used several times. In the song, it’s used as a sarcastic, somewhat indignant but not wholly angry way to say “it’s none of your business,” in response to a beautiful woman in a club accusing the rapper of being high. The phrase became a meme in 2013, following Gucci Mane’s indictment for assaulting a soldier, when a redditor photoshopped a screencap of news coverage of the trial to reference the song. The photoshopped image changed the previous on-screen text to read “Rapper Gucci Mane responds with ‘bitch I might be’ when asked if guilty”. Again, the usage of the phrase is a sarcastic and indignant “none of your business.” The phrase then quickly gained popularity and was added to numerous other photoshopped images.
Now, memes are really cool as a concept anyways, when you think about them hard enough (I mean, the speed at which an entire world full of young people are able to latch onto something as simple as a phrase that they all mutually find funny, and within a matter of days explore every possible usage and implication of that phrase, including how it might relate to other complex systems of knowledge and understanding such as the rich character and plot developments of stories that generate fandoms), but lets put that aside for now and talk about sarcasm, instead.
Because sarcasm is a very sophisticated, complex, and subtle form of wit. It’s a difficult thing to be able to understand, through tone of voice alone, that what someone says, and what they mean, are two different things. And to be able to discern the actual meaning when the words were not said. As wikipedia says, “different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm.“ It’s even harder when those words are typed and not spoken audibly, as the reader must imagine the tone in the first place. That’s a lot of brain work involved in even understanding the true meaning behind that simple little phrase.
And sarcasm is popular right now. More than popular, it’s a hallmark of our generation. People have been writing lengthy articles and psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies and musings on why we’re so sarcastic. As this article suggests, it’s because we’re so angry. We’re a generation that was promised a lot and the world didn’t deliver. We’re disenchanted, and jaded, and mad. And we vent that through sarcastic humor. We laugh at things older generations don’t think are funny. We have come to expect so much disappointment, that we no longer afford “serious” things the respect we’re told they deserve. Because we no longer believe they deserve it. As the article states, “We are a generation that believes nothing is sacred. And if nothing is sacred everything becomes profane.”
One could even go so far as to make the argument that the popularity of the statement on the above image is due partially to the attitude amongst today’s youth (especially on tumblr) that one’s own life and choices are one’s own, and not the business of anybody else. This attitude can be seen in everything as simple as the “be yourself” and “follow your dreams” statements many of us were raised on, to the more serious issues we deal with today of discrimination against the LGBTGA+ community, fat shaming, slut shaming, prejudice against muslim people, etc., to political issues like free speech and government invasion of privacy, and even into more subtle ideas present in social media of privacy settings, controlling who gets to see what posts, block and ignore features, and even the philosophy of “nobody can tell you what to post in your own space. If somebody doesn’t like it, they can unfollow.”
None of this would be happening consciously, of course, but we can’t help but be influenced by the world around us. And a phrase whose meaning is essentially “it’s none of your business” is very likely to resonate strongly with a group of people whose fundamental philosophies of polite interpersonal conduct revolve roughly around the same concept.
Taking all this into consideration, this joke is taking a lot of pre-knowledge and putting it all together to kind of say, in a funny way, “stop acting like you have it all figured out, because you don’t. And some things are just not for you to figure out anyway.”
So to sum up, to understand the above image, you must:
have a descent grasp on art history to recognize the original painting.
have good abstract and/or creative thinking skills to understand and appreciate the original painting.
have a good grasp on modern pop culture, internet culture, and current slang and memes (basically, be an active participant in the wider world).
have the complex emotional and interpersonal understanding necessary to understand the subtleties of sarcasm.
understand enough of what’s going on in the world around you that you are disenchanted enough to appreciate sarcastic humor.
participate in our generation’s general philosophy of life and how to interact with other human beings in the world at large.
So basically, if you laughed, you’re smart. :3

        

            
            

                
                
                    Being Alone, Beautiful, and Bitch: Bítch 1 míaht be.
 magritte
iammissanna:
tzikeh:

the-fault-in-our-wifi:

oh my fucking god

Everyone go home. The internet is over.

Okay, you know what? I just reblogged this but I wanna get geeky over it. ‘Cause this is some high-class humor right here, and if you don’t get that you need to be educated so here I am about to do the thing you’re not supposed to do and explain the joke, because I’m just really impressed by this joke’s construction, okay?
So back in Paris in the 1920s, the surrealist movement in art was just starting to take off. The surrealist movement was born from the dadaist movement, which was a response to strict societal ideas of what was “art” and what wasn’t. The dadaists made a lot of works to try and challenge society’s ideas of what art even was in the first place, and this continued on into the more sophisticated abstract works of surrealism.
One such artist, Rene Magritte (also known for his paintings of people with invisible heads, or with fruit for heads), painted a work called “The Treachery of Images,” depicting a pipe, and underneath the words (in french) “This is Not a Pipe.” The words were meant to refer to the fact that the painted pipe was literally not a real physical pipe that a viewer could smoke out of, it was just a painting of a pipe.
The painting was extremely meta, and really challenged the habit of allowing oneself to get so immersed in a work of art that one forgets it is a created representation of life, and not actual life. Understanding that alone takes a good deal of abstract thinking ability. And really appreciating and enjoying it requires a certain amount of one’s own frustration with society’s habit of trying to put limits on the definition of art; and being unable to think outside the box and really see something from all possible perspectives, including the perspective of being completely outside the thing.
Now what’s even more fascinating to me is that modern art movements (and I don’t mean “modern art,” I mean actual contemporary art movements that are being led by our peers) are kinda doing the same thing the dadaist movement was doing, but in reaction to the art that came out of the dadaist movement. Things have circled back around again, and abstract surrealist art is now what society has decided “art” is. And our generation doesn’t accept that. Comics, video games, TV shows and movies, graffiti art, web series, even flash mobs, all of these are our generation’s way of saying, “no, society, you don’t get to define art as strictly as ‘if it doesn’t make sense to me it must be brilliant.’ Art can be simple to understand, art can be accessible to all people, art can make you beg to find out what happens next!” And that’s really interesting to me.
Flash forwards to 2006, when rapper Gucci Mane writes a song called “Pillz” in which the phrase “bitch I might be” was coined and used several times. In the song, it’s used as a sarcastic, somewhat indignant but not wholly angry way to say “it’s none of your business,” in response to a beautiful woman in a club accusing the rapper of being high. The phrase became a meme in 2013, following Gucci Mane’s indictment for assaulting a soldier, when a redditor photoshopped a screencap of news coverage of the trial to reference the song. The photoshopped image changed the previous on-screen text to read “Rapper Gucci Mane responds with ‘bitch I might be’ when asked if guilty”. Again, the usage of the phrase is a sarcastic and indignant “none of your business.” The phrase then quickly gained popularity and was added to numerous other photoshopped images.
Now, memes are really cool as a concept anyways, when you think about them hard enough (I mean, the speed at which an entire world full of young people are able to latch onto something as simple as a phrase that they all mutually find funny, and within a matter of days explore every possible usage and implication of that phrase, including how it might relate to other complex systems of knowledge and understanding such as the rich character and plot developments of stories that generate fandoms), but lets put that aside for now and talk about sarcasm, instead.
Because sarcasm is a very sophisticated, complex, and subtle form of wit. It’s a difficult thing to be able to understand, through tone of voice alone, that what someone says, and what they mean, are two different things. And to be able to discern the actual meaning when the words were not said. As wikipedia says, “different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm.“ It’s even harder when those words are typed and not spoken audibly, as the reader must imagine the tone in the first place. That’s a lot of brain work involved in even understanding the true meaning behind that simple little phrase.
And sarcasm is popular right now. More than popular, it’s a hallmark of our generation. People have been writing lengthy articles and psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies and musings on why we’re so sarcastic. As this article suggests, it’s because we’re so angry. We’re a generation that was promised a lot and the world didn’t deliver. We’re disenchanted, and jaded, and mad. And we vent that through sarcastic humor. We laugh at things older generations don’t think are funny. We have come to expect so much disappointment, that we no longer afford “serious” things the respect we’re told they deserve. Because we no longer believe they deserve it. As the article states, “We are a generation that believes nothing is sacred. And if nothing is sacred everything becomes profane.”
One could even go so far as to make the argument that the popularity of the statement on the above image is due partially to the attitude amongst today’s youth (especially on tumblr) that one’s own life and choices are one’s own, and not the business of anybody else. This attitude can be seen in everything as simple as the “be yourself” and “follow your dreams” statements many of us were raised on, to the more serious issues we deal with today of discrimination against the LGBTGA+ community, fat shaming, slut shaming, prejudice against muslim people, etc., to political issues like free speech and government invasion of privacy, and even into more subtle ideas present in social media of privacy settings, controlling who gets to see what posts, block and ignore features, and even the philosophy of “nobody can tell you what to post in your own space. If somebody doesn’t like it, they can unfollow.”
None of this would be happening consciously, of course, but we can’t help but be influenced by the world around us. And a phrase whose meaning is essentially “it’s none of your business” is very likely to resonate strongly with a group of people whose fundamental philosophies of polite interpersonal conduct revolve roughly around the same concept.
Taking all this into consideration, this joke is taking a lot of pre-knowledge and putting it all together to kind of say, in a funny way, “stop acting like you have it all figured out, because you don’t. And some things are just not for you to figure out anyway.”
So to sum up, to understand the above image, you must:
have a descent grasp on art history to recognize the original painting.
have good abstract and/or creative thinking skills to understand and appreciate the original painting.
have a good grasp on modern pop culture, internet culture, and current slang and memes (basically, be an active participant in the wider world).
have the complex emotional and interpersonal understanding necessary to understand the subtleties of sarcasm.
understand enough of what’s going on in the world around you that you are disenchanted enough to appreciate sarcastic humor.
participate in our generation’s general philosophy of life and how to interact with other human beings in the world at large.
So basically, if you laughed, you’re smart. :3

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Alive, Anaconda, and Community: ORDER
 HEREORDER
 HERE
edens-blog:

inner-fish:

leftist-daily-reminders:leftist-daily-reminders:winterayars:leftist-daily-reminders:randomrants-obdm:Never gets an order wrong, takes breaks, gets lazy, comes in late, ‘forgets’ to wash hands after restroom, gets frustrated, or gets paidOf course ancaps just view human labor as a cost to be minimized and a tool for the accumulation of capital. Of course the implication here is “beg for scraps from the capitalists or starve”. 
Under more ideal conditions, where the means of production wasn’t hoarded by elites and managed in top-down fashion, machines replacing menial jobs would be precisely what we want – that means shorter hours and more leisure time. Under the current system, people need to find any job (no matter how necessary) and earn wages in order to subsist, so of course we’ve been conditioned to view machines replacing labor as a threat. But why should it be? If so many jobs aren’t necessary because they don’t, well, build and maintain the necessities of society (and only serve the interests of capital and bureaucracy), and so many other jobs aren’t necessary because they can be replaced by machines, WHY do we put up with this bullshit?? If everyone divvied up the necessary jobs in a democratic post-capitalist society, they could be eased by tech and the shifts could be reduced to fractions of what they are now. 
Capitalism will not be able to cope with the automation it sets into motion. Socialism is nigh.Capitalism will not be able to cope with automation.
A lot of current theories about labor, capital, and the like will not be able to cope with a world where 1 person’s labor can provide a reasonable life for 100.Exactly. A central capitalist contradiction will make itself known in the next couple decades: if businesses are going to want to compete, they’ll need to automate, which in turn means laying off workers by the millions; the unemployed masses will not be able to buy the products that the capitalists sell, and at some time then a tipping point will be reached where the only jobs presented to people will be building and maintaining the machines (of course a bit of an exaggeration, but it’ll still likely be close to the reality). Universal basic income proposals will crop up, and the elite will see it as an opportunity to keep capitalism alive and kicking. (In other words, UBIs in this context are meant to maintain capitalism’s tiered ownership over the means of production, land, and resources, but with redistributive taxation to provide a livable floor for people, all to mitigate revolutionary upheaval in the end.) Of course socialists would rather just ditch this convoluted process of UBIs and taxation as a sophisticated feeding tube for capitalism – just turn the economy over to the people for democratic/for-need management and utilize all that automation for the collective good. That means people benefitting en masse, thus shorter shifts, thus more time for leisure and creative self-actualization and socializing. 
In that potential post-capitalist democracy, in the many scenarios where one person’s labor could provide a reasonable life for a hundred, you just need to divvy up those jobs so that any burden that exists can be eased, alongside a community of people having daily shifts of, say, 2 to 4 hours (and even that’s very likely a conservative estimate). Technology and democratic management of the collective capacities have the potential to liberate people from so much toil, if only we were to think outside of the myopic box of mainstream political discourse presented to us by OP. 
This isn’t about minimum wages – this is about demanding a world that works for human beings by default, not only when it’s convenient for the gears of capital. This isn’t about “the people need more jobs” – we ultimately need less jobs, with a focus on the necessary ones divvied up among populations and the economy from there focused on literally meeting societal needs, all so that people can spend most of their lives pursuing their interests and building connections. The creation of art, culture, inventions, and entertainment would arise from self-actualized individuals who create because they want to or because they see value in enriching the lives of others. 
We can do so, so much better than the bland status quo discourse that insists we must choose between smaller scraps and machines stealing our ability to access resources. The scraps were made by us, as was the whole feast, and they only find their way down to us because a superfluous owner class accrues the majority of the feast based on their unnecessary top-down ownership; the machines should be creating a world where it’s easier for us to access resources, not representing the opposite as a threat to us.I just want to remind everybody that OP is an ancap and that this is the disgusting view capitalism-apologists have of workers in the service industry.

These machines are perfect for people who are mute, deaf, have anxiety, can’t read, or can’t speak English. This post is stupid and these machines are great.
        

            
            

                
                
                    Alive, Anaconda, and Community: ORDER
 HEREORDER
 HERE
edens-blog:

inner-fish:

leftist-daily-reminders:leftist-daily-reminders:winterayars:leftist-daily-reminders:randomrants-obdm:Never gets an order wrong, takes breaks, gets lazy, comes in late, ‘forgets’ to wash hands after restroom, gets frustrated, or gets paidOf course ancaps just view human labor as a cost to be minimized and a tool for the accumulation of capital. Of course the implication here is “beg for scraps from the capitalists or starve”. 
Under more ideal conditions, where the means of production wasn’t hoarded by elites and managed in top-down fashion, machines replacing menial jobs would be precisely what we want – that means shorter hours and more leisure time. Under the current system, people need to find any job (no matter how necessary) and earn wages in order to subsist, so of course we’ve been conditioned to view machines replacing labor as a threat. But why should it be? If so many jobs aren’t necessary because they don’t, well, build and maintain the necessities of society (and only serve the interests of capital and bureaucracy), and so many other jobs aren’t necessary because they can be replaced by machines, WHY do we put up with this bullshit?? If everyone divvied up the necessary jobs in a democratic post-capitalist society, they could be eased by tech and the shifts could be reduced to fractions of what they are now. 
Capitalism will not be able to cope with the automation it sets into motion. Socialism is nigh.Capitalism will not be able to cope with automation.
A lot of current theories about labor, capital, and the like will not be able to cope with a world where 1 person’s labor can provide a reasonable life for 100.Exactly. A central capitalist contradiction will make itself known in the next couple decades: if businesses are going to want to compete, they’ll need to automate, which in turn means laying off workers by the millions; the unemployed masses will not be able to buy the products that the capitalists sell, and at some time then a tipping point will be reached where the only jobs presented to people will be building and maintaining the machines (of course a bit of an exaggeration, but it’ll still likely be close to the reality). Universal basic income proposals will crop up, and the elite will see it as an opportunity to keep capitalism alive and kicking. (In other words, UBIs in this context are meant to maintain capitalism’s tiered ownership over the means of production, land, and resources, but with redistributive taxation to provide a livable floor for people, all to mitigate revolutionary upheaval in the end.) Of course socialists would rather just ditch this convoluted process of UBIs and taxation as a sophisticated feeding tube for capitalism – just turn the economy over to the people for democratic/for-need management and utilize all that automation for the collective good. That means people benefitting en masse, thus shorter shifts, thus more time for leisure and creative self-actualization and socializing. 
In that potential post-capitalist democracy, in the many scenarios where one person’s labor could provide a reasonable life for a hundred, you just need to divvy up those jobs so that any burden that exists can be eased, alongside a community of people having daily shifts of, say, 2 to 4 hours (and even that’s very likely a conservative estimate). Technology and democratic management of the collective capacities have the potential to liberate people from so much toil, if only we were to think outside of the myopic box of mainstream political discourse presented to us by OP. 
This isn’t about minimum wages – this is about demanding a world that works for human beings by default, not only when it’s convenient for the gears of capital. This isn’t about “the people need more jobs” – we ultimately need less jobs, with a focus on the necessary ones divvied up among populations and the economy from there focused on literally meeting societal needs, all so that people can spend most of their lives pursuing their interests and building connections. The creation of art, culture, inventions, and entertainment would arise from self-actualized individuals who create because they want to or because they see value in enriching the lives of others. 
We can do so, so much better than the bland status quo discourse that insists we must choose between smaller scraps and machines stealing our ability to access resources. The scraps were made by us, as was the whole feast, and they only find their way down to us because a superfluous owner class accrues the majority of the feast based on their unnecessary top-down ownership; the machines should be creating a world where it’s easier for us to access resources, not representing the opposite as a threat to us.I just want to remind everybody that OP is an ancap and that this is the disgusting view capitalism-apologists have of workers in the service industry.

These machines are perfect for people who are mute, deaf, have anxiety, can’t read, or can’t speak English. This post is stupid and these machines are great.
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        America, Bernie Sanders, and Desperate: THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN..
 1, BERNIE SANDERS ADMITS HE IS A
 DEMOCRATIC SoCIALIST.
 2. NAZIS WERE DEMOCRATIC
 SOCIALISTS
 3. AMERICA FOUGHT AN ENTIRE
 WORLD WAR TO STOP THE ADVANCE OF
 DEMOCRATIC SoCIALISTS.
 SINCERELY SANE AMERICANS
logmeindammit:

c-bassmeow:

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OMG OMG OMG I CANT 
conservatives are so desperate omg 

My favorite liberal rebuttals are when they have no rebuttal so they just post dumb gifs. 
Like at least try. 


If you are insinuating that I have to try hard to debunk a claim that a Jewish man is going to be the next hitler than you are the most cretinous cretin Ive come across on this website and Ive come across a lot. The philosophical roots of democratic socialism is based on far more noble principles than hitlers national socialism which is different. If conservatives are so stupid they associate anything that has the word socialism with Hitler than maybe you should back Bernie since he wants free public colleges and y’all clearly need more education. The irony in this whole debacle is that Donald Trump on your side is actually more ideologically aligned with Hitler since it is not Bernie but Trump , who like Hitler, is blaming all of our economic and societal ills on latinos, immigrants, and muslims- using the same tactics as Hitler who also blamed certain minorities for Germany’s downfall and who like Trump wanted to make his country “great again”. Furthermore, you clearly don’t know anything about history or political science since Hitler’s party is considered a far right party. Sanders, and i hate how i have to spell this out for you, is not far right. Lastly, I will conclude with a gif. 
        

            
            

                
                
                    America, Bernie Sanders, and Desperate: THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN..
 1, BERNIE SANDERS ADMITS HE IS A
 DEMOCRATIC SoCIALIST.
 2. NAZIS WERE DEMOCRATIC
 SOCIALISTS
 3. AMERICA FOUGHT AN ENTIRE
 WORLD WAR TO STOP THE ADVANCE OF
 DEMOCRATIC SoCIALISTS.
 SINCERELY SANE AMERICANS
logmeindammit:

c-bassmeow:

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OMG OMG OMG I CANT 
conservatives are so desperate omg 

My favorite liberal rebuttals are when they have no rebuttal so they just post dumb gifs. 
Like at least try. 


If you are insinuating that I have to try hard to debunk a claim that a Jewish man is going to be the next hitler than you are the most cretinous cretin Ive come across on this website and Ive come across a lot. The philosophical roots of democratic socialism is based on far more noble principles than hitlers national socialism which is different. If conservatives are so stupid they associate anything that has the word socialism with Hitler than maybe you should back Bernie since he wants free public colleges and y’all clearly need more education. The irony in this whole debacle is that Donald Trump on your side is actually more ideologically aligned with Hitler since it is not Bernie but Trump , who like Hitler, is blaming all of our economic and societal ills on latinos, immigrants, and muslims- using the same tactics as Hitler who also blamed certain minorities for Germany’s downfall and who like Trump wanted to make his country “great again”. Furthermore, you clearly don’t know anything about history or political science since Hitler’s party is considered a far right party. Sanders, and i hate how i have to spell this out for you, is not far right. Lastly, I will conclude with a gif. 
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Boner, Cute, and DeLorean: sadiene:
 mentalgrunge
 daftpunk-delorean:
 dangerouslyasexual:
 naamahdarling:
 microbewrangler:
 princess-fluffybutt:
 sassyhiddles
 grim
 missingdinosaur:
 methroid:
 do actors get boners while making sex scenes this is one of the things i've
 wondered my whole life
 Idk if you actually care for the answer, but they have to put their dicks in little
 sleeves that attach to the leg so if they get a boner it just get held down.
 that sounds like a garment that should be sold everywhere and considered polite if
 not mandatory to wear, like bras
 Omg I can't
 As a guy I second this.
 If I have to wear a titty sling because there might be an event where it becomes chilly and my
 nip noops become visible through my shirt, people who have a peenor should be expected to
 wear a peenor sling in case there is an event where a gentle breeze occurs and their p
 becomes erect.
 eenor
 I kind of feel like if we're gonna do that we should go all-out and they should be IMPOSSIBLE
 to size, VERY expensive, flimsy, and made of uncomfortable, itchy materials.
 And the little ones should have cute designs but the big ones only come in white,black, and tar
 and there should be a company that sells them called Victor's Secret, that has uncomfortably large,
 close-up photos of enormously-endowed male "angels" stuffed into their gorgeous little pouches
 spread all over every mall and TV channel, which changes societal expectations on penis size as a
 whole, so that men who don't have incredibly large penises feel impossibly inadequate and feel
 compelled to make up for it by spending a fortune on overpriced penis pouches as a way of
 compensating.
 Then Victor's Secret should be sure not to actually carry any of these garments in the sizes that they
 advertise, so that only modestly-endowed men have the privilege of being seen in the shop, which is
 the type of place that simultaneously clamors for huge dicks, but refuses to cater to them in any way,
 leaving everyone involved vaguely uncomfortable and slightly ashamed.
 This is legit one of the best posts I've ever found on tumblr
 VICTOR'S SECRET
 (via geardrops)
 17 minutes ago crocomire-deactivated20151208 918853 C
 Share
 918853 Notes
VICTORS SECRETomg-humor.tumblr.com
        

            
            

                
                
                    Boner, Cute, and DeLorean: sadiene:
 mentalgrunge
 daftpunk-delorean:
 dangerouslyasexual:
 naamahdarling:
 microbewrangler:
 princess-fluffybutt:
 sassyhiddles
 grim
 missingdinosaur:
 methroid:
 do actors get boners while making sex scenes this is one of the things i've
 wondered my whole life
 Idk if you actually care for the answer, but they have to put their dicks in little
 sleeves that attach to the leg so if they get a boner it just get held down.
 that sounds like a garment that should be sold everywhere and considered polite if
 not mandatory to wear, like bras
 Omg I can't
 As a guy I second this.
 If I have to wear a titty sling because there might be an event where it becomes chilly and my
 nip noops become visible through my shirt, people who have a peenor should be expected to
 wear a peenor sling in case there is an event where a gentle breeze occurs and their p
 becomes erect.
 eenor
 I kind of feel like if we're gonna do that we should go all-out and they should be IMPOSSIBLE
 to size, VERY expensive, flimsy, and made of uncomfortable, itchy materials.
 And the little ones should have cute designs but the big ones only come in white,black, and tar
 and there should be a company that sells them called Victor's Secret, that has uncomfortably large,
 close-up photos of enormously-endowed male "angels" stuffed into their gorgeous little pouches
 spread all over every mall and TV channel, which changes societal expectations on penis size as a
 whole, so that men who don't have incredibly large penises feel impossibly inadequate and feel
 compelled to make up for it by spending a fortune on overpriced penis pouches as a way of
 compensating.
 Then Victor's Secret should be sure not to actually carry any of these garments in the sizes that they
 advertise, so that only modestly-endowed men have the privilege of being seen in the shop, which is
 the type of place that simultaneously clamors for huge dicks, but refuses to cater to them in any way,
 leaving everyone involved vaguely uncomfortable and slightly ashamed.
 This is legit one of the best posts I've ever found on tumblr
 VICTOR'S SECRET
 (via geardrops)
 17 minutes ago crocomire-deactivated20151208 918853 C
 Share
 918853 Notes
VICTORS SECRETomg-humor.tumblr.com
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save